August 1, 2011

While I appreciate the extraordinarily difficult situation President Obama’s lack of leadership has placed Republican Members of Congress in, I personally cannot support this deal....

As president, my plan would have produced a budget that was cut, capped and balanced — not one that opens the door to higher taxes and puts defense cuts on the table... President Obama’s leadership failure has pushed the economy to the brink at the eleventh hour and 59th minute.

President Obama’s lack of leadership... President Obama’s leadership failure... that's the meme.

As president, my plan would have produced a budget that was cut, capped and balanced — not one that opens the door to higher taxes and puts defense cuts on the table

Given everything that's transpired over the past couple of weeks, this seems like a dumb thing for him to do. Cut, Cap, and Balance would have been dead in the senate with him in office or not. Notice he didn't qualify it by saying, "if I had a majority GOP senate."

I'm not entirely sure anything labeled "defense" should be sacred and uncut-able at this point. I'm still in favor of the first step, across the board 5% cut, which would include defense.

As for a blanced budget amendment, I am against it. It will only lead to even more dishonesty in Washington. Most of these guys have previously served in state governments, where they waited to the last week to introduce their bills, and so what did they do? They voted to "stop the clock" is what they did, so that they would get another week or two to actually debate and vote on their bills. A balanced budget amendment would not even slow them down; they would just claim a perpetual crisis, so that they would not have to comply with it.

I agree with Romney that Obama's leadership has been terrible, and usually nonexistent.

Obama himself set the conditions for leadership failure when he refused to raise the debt ceiling so many times for Bush, too. He's by his own measure a failure. Same with Libya. By Obama's own measure, he's breaking his oath of office.

Obama promised to cut the deficit in half, complaining about a GOP record prior to 2006 when Obama and pals voted for huge deficits. He has not succeeded, and hasn't even tried.

What's sick is that if we simply spent the same amount every year, that would amount to a several trillion dollar cut. That's how screwed up the baseline is today. Just changing nothing would be almost a 9 times bigger reform than the reform is.

Not entirely, not at all. The process itself cost him significantly and irrevocably. While people can dither and argue back and forth about the mostly inside-baseball aspects of the deal, POTUS' public appearances and Carney's bullshit are out there plainly for everyone to see. He's already got severe problems and this didn't help one bit.

From my point of view, Mr. Romney loses some respect for this. I've already written off Bachmann, and Pawlenty disappointed me as well. How can I support anyone for high office who didn't have the sense to understand that - yucky as it is - the debt ceiling had to be raised because the alternative was disastrous? Every serious candidate should have included with his complaints the statement, "Of course there was no question that one way or another the ceiling had to be raised."

I'm a Tea Partier by nature, and it's exciting that this grassroots movement has gained so much traction, but some sense would help as well.

Fascinating, even Drudge can't keep up with the volume of interest in this otherwise mundane subject! Of course, it's only mundane if the continuance of the country is of small interest to readers and I do presume some might well be interesting in this country staying alive, so to speak.

Mitt needs to get all the facts on the table, talk with his peeps, do a survey, check the polls, sleep on it, have a family meeting, get back to most up to date polls and then make a declarative statement.

He's great.

He's also better for gays than Ted Kennedy! It's even on video. How can you not love that? And he despises East Coast Elites..or at least he did.

Hey, Mitt could have taken the position that he supported the deal, albeit with reservations. Instead he said he didn't support the deal.

Don't see why that should make him more suspect. You may say it shows a lack of principle to come out now, that the deal is done. But again, since the deal is done and many conservatives support the deal, he could if he really wanted to take an unprincipled position say that he supports the deal but has a lot of problems with it. Like a lot of other repubs.

Tea partiers, I don't think you realize that if you can't possibly pass the legislation you want because you only control one house, sticking to your guns 100% only guarantees that you don't get your legislation passed and you get pegged as the people who brought down the economy because you unrealistically stuck to your guns despite knowing that you had no chance in hell of getting what you want passed. again, think long term and not immediately. What you want is to get more people in office, and that only works if you are effective. In most respects, the tea partiers won. They didn't get taxes raised and we're dealing with spending cuts to offset a raising of the debt ceiling. So, then continue to hammer away at how lousy Obama is and how this agreement sucks, BUT that it's not better because we need more tea partiers on board. And that requires winning the next elections.

As for Romney sticking his neck out before the deal is struck. Why should he? Let them work out the deal so that he doesn't have to get pegged with supporting something that suggests he's out of touch or unrealistic or unwilling to compromise or too willing to compromise. Remember how Mccain got dinged during the last elections during the start of the financial crisis where he said he would stay until a deal was struck, and then was hammered by the media for being out of touch? Why should Mitt open himself up to that when he could instead let others come up with a finished product and then criticize that finished product?

Obama's essential leadership approach is to stay out of the game and avoid taking a position until the very end. Which is to say he has no leadership.

Does he really think that casually motivated independent voters, the folks who fell for him in 2008, have not noticed? The healthcare reform legislation, this mess, it all shows why you do not trust the office of the Presidency to someone who has never before demonstrated leadership skills and temperament.

I voted for Mitt in the 2008 primary here in FL, just as his campaign lost all steam. Not sure where my support will be this time, but Romney is well within the range of acceptable alternatives to Obama.

For most of my life the Demos have have had a hard intractible left while all the Repubs were 'reasonable'. The result was that all the compromises tracked left of center. Intentional or not, the Tea Party now anchors the Repub tug-o-war team and that changes the dynamic.

Mitt stands by the anchors and says "I'll give you what you want." The strong anchor on the Repub side is what's bothering the press and the elite.

Obama's essential leadership approach is to stay out of the game and avoid taking a position until the very end. Which is to say he has no leadership.

Does he really think that casually motivated independent voters, the folks who fell for him in 2008, have not noticed? The healthcare reform legislation, this mess, it all shows why you do not trust the office of the Presidency to someone who has never before demonstrated leadership skills and temperament.

I voted for Mitt in the 2008 primary here in FL, just as his campaign lost all steam. Not sure where my support will be this time, but Romney is well within the range of acceptable alternatives to Obama.

President Obama’s lack of leadership... President Obama’s leadership failure... that's the meme.

But shouldn't Romney be happy that Obama is so lacking as a leader (and that he's apparently an incompetent negotiator?) I don't mean in terms of the election; I mean in terms of policy.

Just what, a week ago? Weren't we told that Boehner and Obama had agreed to a debt-ceiling bill that mixed $800 billion in tax increases with a variety of spending cuts? And then Obama torpedoed that by hauling out a last minute demand for another $400 billion in tax increases? I mean, the President had a deal on the table that took $800 billion in increased taxes -- what he's been bleating about every day since then. He could have taken it. And he blew it up right there. So now we've got a deal that's all spending cuts, with a chance of maybe getting some tax increases from a commission sometime in the future. Which Congress can reject and get more spending cuts instead.

Shouldn't we be happy he's so incompetent? Shouldn't we be happy at his total failure of leadership? Because I, for one, don't particularly want us going in the direction he wants to lead.

Consider that Democrats could have just said, "Tax increases or forget it," and the press would have ensured that the Republicans got all the blame for any ensuing government shutdown. The Dems have the press, and they lost. That's huge.

Freeman, I would not be patting ourselves on the back for a job well done. Not yet anyway. Obama is a big winner in kicking the debt ceiling down the road past his re-election efforts. I sense a trap. We need to be cautious here. Very cautious.

He loses me with "no defense cuts". You could slash defense without actually slashing a bit of genuine defense.

Want to see balls; Tom Coburn has 'em. He has specific proposals to cut $9 trillion, include $1 trillion from defense. You can start by closing 90% of our bases overseas. (I'd also get out of NATO, Afghanistan and Libya. All pointless wastes of money.)

meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...meme...There! All out of our system now??

not one that opens the door to higher taxes and puts defense cuts on the table...

It's disgusting the way that Romney tries to give the impression that "defense cuts" will result in the deployed rank-and-file not getting their paychecks and stuff like that. Instead, what Republicans like him are really concerned about is that defense contractors get paid for their overpriced, unnecessary products, and that the government not question any expenditures that could possibly be related to "security" or "defense". The corporations getting this big-government cash are old-fashioned clients of his; they need to be paid off!

Not to whack away at you, but Romney IS "East Coast Elite." Governor of Massachusetts fer Gawd's sake.

He reminds me of former Michigan governor Bill Milliken (similar backgrounds, too)... the original definitive ultra RINO who installed two devastating taxes and still thinks that was a good idea. He helped Gov. Granholm (D) continue them unabated. There is a reason, beyond blight, for auto companies and their suppliers locating in the Carolinas, Alabama, Texas, and Tennessee, etc. To cap it all off ... he also formally endorsed Kerry in 2004.

I just can't shake the feeling that Romney is the political equivalent of a chameleon.

Obama is a big winner in kicking the debt ceiling down the road past his re-election efforts.

That's only because the goalposts got moved so far that that's all he had left. I mean, sure it's something that the Republican freshmen in the House of Representatives didn't just steamroll him completely, but I don't think his supporters (or, in his less delusional moments, he himself) can count that as much of a victory. It's survival at the expense of his fervent commitment to taxing the crap out of people.

Bond rating downgraded? GOOD. If it’s harder to get money, there will be less borrowed.

Government collapses? Good. If there is no government they can’t spend money. This is a win-win for most of Americans. Percenters (anybody that derives income from a percentage of another’s labor) will get screwed but they have been screwing everybody for ages it’s only fair that they get a turn over the barrel.

Sampson took down the Temple to kill the Philistines. The establishment needs to know that it’s over. They either stop with the deficit spending or the Temple comes down.

Since deficit spending will destroy everything eventually, Destroying it now allows the rebuilding to start sooner and puts the hurt on the Bastards that did this to us.

Actually, there's plenty of places to cut defense costs. But do we trust the zero and his Dems to do it?

Hmmmmmm.

No.

PS For a peace candidate that zero guy sure has a lot of wars, limited wars, actions, drones, drones, drones, going on. The drones are the best - no danger to us, just bomb a bunch brown people and kill targets, civilians, kids, whatever - it's collateral - building friendships around the globe. Kum Ba Ya M....F....R. Love Barack.

Leadership IS a person who is willing to state a clear goal and how to get there from here.

That simple action is all that it takes.

It releases the energies and creativity of millions of good men and women who are waiting around and stewing for lack of such a signal. They know in their hearts that such a leader will honor them for their sacrifices, and not claim he did it all.

Therefore the Romney style is worthless crap.

All Romney ever wants is what he can carefully measure to be good for Romney. That can also be called cowardice.

Why should anyone expect that will change the day Romney becomes President.

I don't think you realize that if you can't possibly pass the legislation you want because you only control one house, sticking to your guns 100% only guarantees that you don't get your legislation passed and you get pegged as the people who brought down the economy because you unrealistically stuck to your guns despite knowing that you had no chance in hell of getting what you want passed. again, think long term and not immediately.

No. You don't realize that we DO realize that the legislation we want passed is doomed to be flushed down the toilet along with the rest of the country.

That doesn't mean that you still do not do the right thing and stand by your principles.

It isn't going to 'bring down the economy' if we stop over spending and sinking ever deeper into the quagmire of debt. In case you haven't noticed, the economy isn't doing so well right now with the same old same old spend and borrow and spend some more policies.

If the legislation that the Tea Party wants (stop the fucking spending!!!!) DOES bring the economy to its knees.....will anyone notice? It think we are about half way on our knees right now. Maybe it is time for a big fat 'reset button'.

If federal government closes down half of its offices or goes to half staff....will anyone notice? I won't.

Very few conservatives know CEO's of defense contracting companies so, if what you say is true, it's more likely due to the fact that conservatives view the military as a very serious, if not THE most serious, function of government.

If there is no sovereignty, all the other crap goes swirly. That being said, there is loads of fat to trim from procurement alone. As a president, however, I would never do so at a cost to what few edges we have left to us.

I mention defense because conservatives talk about cuts, cuts, cuts, but if you mention the military, they turn blue and start crying.

Bull crap. You obviously don't talk to many Conservatives.

Cutting military spending is easy and needs to be done. Close overseas bases that are not necessary or strategic.

Control the crony spending on parts and equipment. Just because it is the military, doesn't mean that there isn't waste, fraud and corruption.

What we don't want to cut are those things that keep the troops safe and secure. Of course, when the Dems try to demonize the conservatives this is the first thing they allege. That we are going to send the troops out armed with slingshots and in paper armor.

I'm not sure how you arrive at that conclusion based on my comment or those above. Those "silly details" escaped nobody and, thus, your original sally falls short of logic. All you're trying to do is score little points when the big ones have already been checked off, making your irrelevant.

A. Schmendrik - "Not sure where my support will be this time, but Romney is well within the range of acceptable alternatives to Obama."

A good way to put it.

I liken it to a Venn diagram. You have candidates that may not awaken that good old Southern Religious Right fervor...but appear competent. Then you have the glam females of little proven competency and experience but look hot and rile up the yahoos at rallies something fierce...anlong with "candidates of purity" like Ron Paul.

Does the circle of people who are acceptable to Republicans and to the larger public overlap with the Venn diagram circle of who is electable against Obama? Absolutely with Perry and Romney.

Does the circle of who is beloved by the Religious Right base overlap with the circle of who is electable against Obama? Nope. Palin, Bachmann, Paul all have 20+ point behind Obama numbers.

The counterargument is to say that it is glorious to have a Sharron Angle run and lose on purity...because she sure "sent a message" to Harry Reid as he goes back for another 6 years as Senator. And if plucky, beloved Tea Partier message is ignored by Reid - well, not her fault!!

You and I usually agree, but, respectfully, you're mistaken on this one.

When it comes to cutting any defense items, conservatives can be counted on to cry like little babies. Mention virtually any meaningful defense cuts and you're sure to get immediate whining, crying and wailing.

When it comes to cutting any defense items, conservatives can be counted on to cry like little babies. Mention virtually any meaningful defense cuts and you're sure to get immediate whining, crying and wailing

Bullshit. Everyone I know personally and those locally I've met with are in the "shut down unnecessary bases overseas" camp. That alone would be HUGE cuts in current spending. I don't know which conservatives you're talking about but, even given the regulars around here, I'd say you're wrong on this point.

Now...try to cut a program like the Raptor claiming the 15C/D and E are just fine, I'm going to fight you tooth and nail.

Considering how many times Milton has shot himself in the head, it's nice to see he finally gets it.

Sort of.

It won't do him any good, but it's nice to see.

Julius said...

not one that opens the door to higher taxes and puts defense cuts on the table...

It's disgusting the way that Romney tries to give the impression that "defense cuts" will result in the deployed rank-and-file not getting their paychecks and stuff like that.

You mean like Little Zero did?

PS Disagree with Freeman. It's a lousy deal, but, considering we could be stuck with Stimulus III and the mother of all tax increases, it's like Hooker said to Gondorff, "It's not enough, but it'll do".

Once again the Republican establishment has fallen all over itself pulling Obama's chestnuts out of the fire. Anything, anything not to be shunned as outlaws by the ruling class. What other conclusion is possible?

"In terms of accounting, I'd say you're correct [that is was a draw]. However, in terms of PR and the balance of power, I'd have to disagree."

In terms of accounting, I'd call it an utter defeat. No cuts. Debt ceiling raised by what? $1T, 2$T? If you fold in the increased public awareness and, hopefully, positive momentum on this issue, I'd raise it to a draw.

I think we're done in Afganistan. Why not come home tomorrow? Think of what that would save?

According to the Congressional Research Service, military operations in Afghanistan are costing about $114B this year. So if we just assume we'd stay there for 10 more years, we could reduce spending by over a trillion dollars! /govacctng

wv armar: Freedonia's war plans call for swift armar attacks with close support by the air farce.

Fred4Pres--Dana Loesch is always worth watching but CC&B is pointless. Enact the Ryan plan and you don't need a Balanced Budget Amendment. Fail to make structural reforms in entitlements, and a balanced budget amendment will result in massive tax hikes.

Apologies for the self-link, but it seems more efficient than replicating my entire argument here.

Very disappointed in Romney's timing and his lack of innovative thinking. Hell, given his background as a founding member of a capital investment firm, this was his time to shine. The big reason I would've voted for Romney is that he supposedly has a lot of financial expertise.

"I would've gone with the first Boehner bill." That's all you got, Mitt? Nothing more creative than that?

You folks know that he leads Obama by a few points head to head, right? And that no one else does, at least not yet?

I'd vote for one of Titus' morning turds if he can beat Obama.

Oh, no, this move of his wreaks of political cowardice. How awful. We need someone more reckless, who puts less thought into his positions and stakes them out before knowing where to position himself. Yeah, that's how you win. Jesus.

Obama's plan here is to feign total defeat in this debt ceiling deal, then blame everything bad that happens between now and November 2012 on this deal. How is it stupid for Romney to oppose this, even if it's just for political positioning?

Of course. But people also care about what happens after the election. It's not just a matter of maximizing the probability that Republican lobbyists move ahead of Democrat lobbyists in the corridors of power.

ricpic said...Once again the Republican establishment has fallen all over itself pulling Obama's chestnuts out of the fire. Anything, anything not to be shunned as outlaws by the ruling class. What other conclusion is possible?

====================To keep their beloved tax cuts for the wealthy, the Republicans gave up 2 trillion in cuts. And the choice came down to default or not. Now, many tea party screwballs on the far Right DID want us to default to "send a message!!". But that message would have translated out to a destroyed economy and high inflation and high interest rates on everyone for many years to come, not just the Federal Government.

Romney was right to say "it isn't that good". But wrong to posture as if the country really wanted everyone but the rich to sacrifice.

To keep their beloved tax cuts for the wealthy, the Republicans gave up 2 trillion in cuts. And the choice came down to default or not. Now, many tea party screwballs on the far Right DID want us to default to "send a message!!". But that message would have translated out to a destroyed economy and high inflation and high interest rates on everyone for many years to come, not just the Federal Government.

Uh oh. Someone here thinks that the only way to keep from high inflation and interest rates is to raise taxes. Of course, this ignores why inflation and interest rates might be rising in the future, and assumes, I think, that somehow raising the tax rates on the "rich" (which really means you and me) will bring in all that much revenue. That, of course, is called "static analysis", and the only reason that the CBO uses it, is that they are required to by Congress, and that is because their results bias in favor of tax increases, and not spending cuts, as a result.

But, other than that, Cederford's post was a triumph of liberal talking points over economic reality.

I'm not on Mitts support wagon at the moment, but I will say that the meme is largely true considering this empty suited buffoon of a president had 2 years to 'solve' this problem. And Romney has effectively been caving himself after the mess he made in Iowa, I believe.

The question that remains is, do the party faithful believe the brotha's got soul?

He's reminiscent of the kid that always did just a little too well in school: the answers always "just so", projects and assignments done so perfectly... We all knew his parents were giving him big assists, yet he was smart enough that he could talk his way around those sorts of accusations.

Chip S., I am a big supporter of Ryan's plan. CC&B is a lesser version. The current "compromise" is lesser yet. I could have lived (and been disappointed) with CC&B. The current situation is far weaker for the GOP and I hope Dems defeat it (although I doubt they will).

Oh, no, this move of his wreaks of political cowardice. How awful. We need someone more reckless, who puts less thought into his positions and stakes them out before knowing where to position himself. Yeah, that's how you win. Jesus.

Jesus? Is it reckless to expect a supposed financial expert to comment on, oh, I don't know, financial stuff? Is that reckless? Should Tiger Woods not comment on golf so as not to appear 'reckless'?

Shouldn't Romney have staked out a position already on the economy? This has been the most anticipated, slowest-moving 'crisis' in decades. Give me a break.

Is today's politician so fearful of bad publicity or political spin that they can't even comment on their areas of expertise? Sorry; that's gutless. Just say what you think; that's being genuine and that's what people respond to, even if the media trashes you. And being genuine has always been a sore spot for Mitt.

In 2008 the majority of Americans went for the 'Anybody But Bush' strategy. Look how that worked out. So yes, I want to be a little discriminating and discerning in our choice of candidates.

Can you send me the web site address for the Eleanor Clift School of Debate and Reason? I too want to learn how to make glib, phantasmagorical leaps in logic.

1) If Romney were President right now, he'd do Exactly the same thing, because he's old style GOP, and this is how they roll. 2) Hey, TEAPERS, I work in Case Management, and we were already running on FUMES. Now, we are probably going to go outta business, which means more children will sleep cold and starve. This is a FACT, and 3) Hypocrite pass health care in his state - 'Nuff Said!!

When looking at a company would Mitt only look at its debt and ignore its assets? What are the Federal assets we are leaving our children? I suspect they are 10 times the debt. If I leave my kids $1 million in debt and $10 million in land, buildings, and other assets they will be happy.

When looking at a company would Mitt only look at its debt and ignore its assets? What are the Federal assets we are leaving our children? I suspect they are 10 times the debt. If I leave my kids $1 million in debt and $10 million in land, buildings, and other assets they will be happy.